State v. Kline, 2012 Ohio 4345

Kline and Eric Allenback assaulted Jason Westfall at Holli Balazs's home on August 11, 2009; Westfall was beaten with multiple weapons, incapacitated, and transported to Toledo where he was dumped in a street; Balazs retrieved a handgun which Kline took and used to strike Westfall; Westfall required three days of hospitalization.
Balazs helped remove Westfall and the child after the assault; Balazs's account and Balazs's statements supported the severity of the offense.
On August 14, 2009, a Henry County Grand Jury indicted Kline on five counts including felonious assault with a gun specification, along with aggravated burglary and kidnapping counts; all counts carried firearm specifications.
On May 10, 2010, Kline pled no contest to count five (felonious assault with gun spec); the State dismissed the other four counts; the trial court found Kline guilty on count five and the gun specification.
On June 9, 2010, the trial court sentenced Kline to a maximum eight-year term for felonious assault plus three years for the gun specification, to be served consecutively for a total eleven years, plus $16,377.77 restitution to Westfall, joint and several with Allenback.
Kline later sought relief via a motion for reconsideration of restitution and objected to the allocation of damages between co-defendants; the court denied, maintaining the $16,377.77 and holding joint and several liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the maximum sentence was properly supported by the record	Kline argues mitigating factors were present	The record supports the maximum within statutory range and no findings were required under Mathis	Max sentence supported; overruled
Whether the restitution amount is supported by the record	Westfall's claimed economic loss of $16,377.77 is disputed	Restitution amount based on victim's statement; within statutory authority	Restitution amount of $16,377.77 upheld
Whether inflammatory sentencing evidence required a finding or plea-bargain agreement	Inflammatory photos improperly influenced sentencing	Court properly weighed evidence; photos did not prejudice the sentence	No reversible error; third assignment overruled
Whether the court properly declined to apportion restitution between co-offenders	Court should allocate liability among co-defendants	Statute permits joint and several liability without apportionment	No error; fourth assignment overruled

State v. Bowser, 186 Ohio App.3d 162 (2010-Ohio-951) (trial courts have discretion to impose within-range sentences; no need to articulate findings for maximum or consecutive terms)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006-Ohio-855) (no findings required for imposition of prison terms within statutory range)
State v. Triggs, 2010-Ohio-4178 (3d Dist. No. 12-10-03) (recognizes discretion in sentencing within the statutory framework)
State v. Post, 32 Ohio St.3d 380 (1987) (presumption that sentencing evidence is relevant and properly considered)
State v. Simko, 71 Ohio St.3d 483 (1994) (evidence may be considered if not shown to be improperly inflammatory)